On Saturday, February 9, 2013 6:54:38 PM UTC-5, Kim Jones wrote:
> What an extraordinarily interesting idea, Craig! I'll have to let Brian
> Eno know about this. Eno was recently talking about the possibilities of a
> new kind of "inaudible music". Actually, John Cage already "invented" that
> in the '50s with his infamous piece "4'.33" " - where the pianist walks to
> the keyboard, sits there for 4 minutes and 33 seconds (without playing
> anything) and then gets up and leaves. The "music" is in fact all the
> little reactionary giggles, guffaws, sighs etc. of the audience's outraged
> reaction. Also the tweets of the little birdies in the trees outside etc.
> It qualifies as music because each and every performance of 4'. 33" is
> different. The environment interprets the score; the performer is merely
> the catalyst. And I can assure you, good old John Cage was no stranger to
> the odd hallucinogenic experience.
Yes, I'm familiar with all of that. The history of art and music is full of
conceptual provocations, from Malevich to Duchamp, Shoenberg to Zappa.
While I agree that these can be very interesting and imaginative, they
hardly disprove my point. Music is in no danger of being replaced by silent
representations of music.
> Can we encode the music of silence in binary?
We can't encode any music in binary, we can only encode instructions for an
instrument to stimulate human ears in a way that we find musical, or silent.
> If music were just an audible math though, then people should enjoy
> watching oscilloscope renditions of songs with no sound as much as they do
> listening to them.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.